Conference Agenda

Session
20-PM2-09: ST 5.1 & 8.1 & 8.2 - Open Innovation
Time:
Thursday, 20/Jun/2019:
2:45pm - 4:15pm

Session Chair: Pascal Corbel, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay
Location: Room PC 17

Session Abstract

This sessions combines papers from the following tracks:

ST 5.1 - Open innovation in Emerging Countries and social entrepreneurship

ST8.1 - Open Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights

ST8.2 - From Open Innovation to Business-to-Business, new roles and methods for Purchasing


Presentations

Attack and Defend: The roles of resource portfolios, open innovation, and network position on patent-based competition

Chih-Yi Su1, Bou-Wen Lin2

1Shenzhen University, China, People's Republic of; 2National Taiwan University

Context

Patent-based competition among firms have become more intensive. This study focuses on firms’ patent-based competition and examines how technological diversity, open innovation strategies, and network position moderate the effects of competitive actions on firm performance.

Literature

Competition literature:

•While a firm engages in competitive battles and initiates attacks to improve their position, it also has to consider how to react to lower the vulnerability from rivals' retaliation (MacMillan, 1982).

•Research has shown that a firm's competitive moves matter to its performance (Chen & Miller, 1994; Young et al., 1996)

•Greater technological resource breadth allows firms to find more idiosyncratic combinations of resources to support a greater variety of actions against rivals' attacks (Ndofor et al., 2011).

Open Innovation:

•Inbound OI refers to the acquisition of external technology (Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; Spithoven et al., 2010).

•Outbound OI refers to outward technology transfer (Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006)

Network theory:

Technological crowding refers to the degree to which technological focus of a firm is shared by many other organizations (Stuart, 1999; Stuart & Podolny, 1996).

Literature Gap

This study aims to investigate a firm’s patent-based competitive actions, as opposed to its market-oriented activities-such as advertising-which are the typical foci of most studies. Scholars have neither sufficiently explored how firms effectively initiate patent-based moves nor explored how a firm's resource portfolios and innovation strategies affect its performance outcomes.

Research Questions

1. How do firms leverage their internal and external resources to effectively take initiatives and mitigate the vulnerability of rivals' threats?

2. How does structural crowding affect firms’ competitive behaviors?

Methodology

We tested our hypotheses in the context of the U.S. communications equipment industry from 1989 to 2008. We choose this industry primarily because it is subject to extremely intensive patent infringement competition (Clarkson and Toh, 2010). First, using the COMPUSTAT database, we identified all publicly traded firms in the communications equipment industry. This process resulted in a panel of 425 firms. Second, we excluded 75 companies that did not have complete financial records for at least 10 years. We obtained patent infringement records from the Westlaw (LitAlert) database. The effective sample for analysis contained 1,674 firm–year observations.

Empirical Material

First, using the COMPUSTAT database and the three–digit SIC codes 366 and 367, we identified all publicly traded firms in the communications equipment industry. We then tracked the parents of these firms via the Securities Data Corporation (SDC) database, and in situations entailing subsidiaries, we focused on the parent firms because they own, address, and oversee IP litigation.

Second, a patent infringement lawsuit is registered and becomes part of the public record once it is filed in the United States Federal District Court. We obtained patent infringement records from the Westlaw (LitAlert) database, which contains complete records of patent litigation cases in the United States and provides the associated patent numbers, filing dates and docket numbers of the lawsuits and the identities of plaintiffs and defendants. To ensure the accuracy and completeness of patent infringements, we also verified and triangulated the Westlaw database records with Lexis–Nexis Law records.

Third, we matched our data with patent records from the United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) patent database (Hall, Jaffe, and Trajtenberg, 2001).

Results

Hypothesis 1 proposed that a firm’s competitive initiatives will positively affect its performance. Model 2 shows that the coefficient for competitive initiatives is positive and statistically significant (b=0.024; p<0.05), supporting Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted that a firm’s vulnerability will negatively affect its performance. The coefficient of vulnerability is negative and marginally significant (b=-0.033; p<0.1). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is also supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive moderating influence of technological diversity on the effectiveness of competitive initiatives. In model 3, the interaction between competitive initiatives and technological diversity is positive and statistically significant (b=0.106; p<0.05), indicating that the positive impact of competitive initiatives on performance is even stronger with greater technological diversity. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported. Hypothesis 4 posits that inbound open innovation will strengthen the impact of competitive initiatives on firm performance. The positive and significant coefficient for the interaction between competitive initiatives and performance (Model 3; b=0.027; p<0.01) provides strong support for Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5 posits that technological crowding will weaken the positive impact of competitive initiatives on firm performance. The coefficient for the interaction between competitive initiatives and technological crowding on performance is negative and statistically significant (Model 3; b=-0.017; p<0.001), supporting Hypothesis 5.

Contribution to Scholarship

First, this study contributes to competition literature by exploring patent-based competition and answering the need for research to distinguish firms’ competitive initiatives from defenses against vulnerabilities, with such distinctions having different and important influences on firm performance (Chen et al., 2010). Second, this study contributes to integrate open innovation perspective into competitive strategy research by highlighting the role of open innovation strategy for firms in achieving superior performance.

Contribution to Practice

First, building a broad set of technological resources enables firms to realize the economic returns of aggressive actions by acquiring substantial bargaining power, pursuing unique combinations of knowledge across domains and reducing the risks inherent in dynamic environments. Second, firms can acquire technology from external sources to strengthen their portfolios, their bargaining power, and their competitive advantage on patent-based competition. Third, high levels of technological crowding would diminish the benefits of aggressive patent-based actions.

Fitness

The aim of this paper is precisely to fit this tract on the role of IPRs in the open innovation.

Bibliography

Chen, M. J., Lin, H. C., & Michel, J. G. (2010). Navigating in a hypercompetitive environment: The roles of action aggressiveness and TMT integration. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1410-1430.

Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (1994). Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy valence framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 85-102.

Chen, M. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1992). Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses. Management Science, 38(3), 439-455.

Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229-236.

Clarkson, G., & Toh, P. K. (2010). ‘Keep out’ signs: the role of deterrence in the competition for resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1202-1225.

MacMillan, I. C. (1982). Seizing competitive initiative. Journal of Business Strategy, 2(4), 43-57.

Ndofor, H. A., Sirmon, D. G., & He, X. (2011). Firm resources, competitive actions and performance: investigating a mediated model with evidence from the in‐vitro diagnostics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 640-657.

Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130-141.

Stuart, T. E. (1999). A structural perspective on organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(4), 745.

Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 21-38.

Young, G., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1996). "Austrian" and industrial organization perspectives on firm-level competitive activity and performance. Organization Science, 7(3), 243-254.

Yu, T., Subramaniam, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Rivalry deterrence in international markets: Contingencies governing the mutual forbearance hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 127-147.

Zobel, A. K., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation, 59, 44-54.



Patent Threat and Risk Management to Open Innovation—A Case Study of Blockchain

Huang-Chih Sung

National Chengchi University, Taiwan

Context

The blockchain adopts open source software, and the progress and evoluation of blockchain industry is a typical open innovation. However, some subsequent developers have applied for many patents for their technology improvements and application developments. Theses patents may pose a huge threat to the advancement of the entire blockchain industry.

Literature

Chesbrough (2003a) raised the era of open innovation, pointing out that companies were rethinking the basic ways of generating ideas and bringing them into market. Chesbrough (2003b) systematically introduced the open innovation paradigm, and used IBM as an example to discuss the transformation from closed to open innovation. Chesbrough (2003c) discussed the management of intellectual property in open innovation. Holgersson, Granstrand, & Bogers (2018) analyzed the co-evolution of strategic management of intellectual property, and found that the development of complementary and alternative systems is essential when developing strategies in the context of dynamic and system innovation. Da Silva (2018) addressed the relationship between open innovation and intellectual property rights, and found that the increase of patent protection promotes the free sharing and dissemination of technical information.

Literature Gap

In the past, the researches of open innovation mentioned less about the impact of patenting on the entire industry, especially on the open source industries. Few literatures discussed about the patent threat to an industry and studied the risk management in response to the patent threat.

Research Questions

For corporates which are engaged in blockchain development, how serious is the patent threat? And how to do risk management in response to the patent threat? Can Open Innovation Network, which many companies participate in, effectively overcome the patent threats?

Methodology

In order to understand how serious the patent threat is, this article quantitatively conducts a patent search about the blockchain technologies and applications in the patent databases of America and China. In order to understand whether Open Innovation Network can effectively overcome the patent threats, this article qualitatively conduct a case study of Hyperledger which was founded by the Linux Foundation desiring to become “the Linux of the blockchain world” (Bradbury, 2016). Finally, an analytically research is conducted to analyze the strategy for blockchain-developing companies to do risk management in response to the patent threat.

Empirical Material

For the quantitative patent search, the empirical material is from the official patent databases of United States (United States Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov) and China (National Intellectual Property Administration, www.sipo.gov.cn), both including the granted patents and the pending patent applications. The keywords for this patent search contain blockchain, distributed ledger, bitcoin, ethereum, cryptocurrency, and digital currency, searching from the full ptent specifications. For the qualitative case study of Hyperledger, the empirical material is the offcial webpages of Open Innovation Network (https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/) and Hyperledger (https://www.hyperledger.org/), as well as the White Paper of Hyperledger (Hyperledger 2018). This article specially notices the members of Hyperledger, which may be also found on the official website of Hyperledger (https://www.hyperledger.org/members). By searching the participants of Hyperledger, this article finds that some companies owning many blockchain patents have already joined Hyperledger, such as IBM, Intel, Tencent, Accenture, and Baidu. These companies will share and cross-license their patents with each other in the Hyperledger community. However, many other companies with multiple blockchain patents have not joined Hyperledger, such as Walmart, Bank of America, MasterCard, Apple, Microsoft and JingDong.

Results

There have already been 994 blockchain-related patents granted in America. The top ten patent owners are IBM and Intertrust Technologies with 43, Accenture with 40, Game Play Network with 38, Bank of America with 25, ALTR Solutions with 14, MasterCard and Square both with 13, and Amazon Technologies with 12. There have already been 4,058 pending patent applications in America, including 216 filed by IBM, 94 by Walmart, 85 by Bank of America, 68 by MasterCard, 29 by Apple, 28 by Microsoft and 20 by Alibaba. Although there are currently only 190 blockchain patents granted in China, there have already been 6,708 pending patent applications, including 194 filed by Alibaba, 144 by China United Network communications Group, 134 by JingDong, 107 by Tencent, and 79 by Baidu. Since these patents include many enhancements and applications of blockchain technology, companies are likely to unintentionally use these patented technologies when utilizing blockchain technology for application developments. If these patentees raise patent litigation wars to enjoin competitors from entering the market, the open innovation of the blockchain industry is likely to be hindered. Therefore, how to do risk management in response to the patent threats becomes an important issue for blockchain-based enterprises.

Contribution to Scholarship

Hyperledger operates under the Apache 2.0 license which requests each contributor to provide non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, and worldwide copyright and patent licenses to all of the community members. The purpose of this mechanism is to avoid patent litigation in the Hyperledger community. However, can Hyperledger really protect the blockchain industry from the threat of patent litigation? Although some companies owning many blockchain patents have already joined Hyperledger and will share and cross-license their patents with each other, many other companies with multiple blockchain patents have not joined Hyperledger. On one hand, these companies that do not join Hyperledger cannot get access to the patents in Hyperledger for free; on the other hand, they do not need to license their patent rights to the Hyperledger compaines. The patents outside Hyperledger still threaten companies within the Hyperledger community, so the patent threats to the blockchain-based open innovations are not totally lifted.

Contribution to Practice

The blockchain-developing enterprises must do more risk management against the patent threats. They should keep watching the competitors’ patent portfolios. When they are developing a new product and finds it’s using a competitor’s patent, they may design around the patent in order to keep the freedom-of-operate. If the patent is essential and hard to be designed around, they can try to find prior art to invalidate the patents by challenging the novelty or non-obviousness of the patent. They should also apply for more patents for their new products or services to increase their bargain power of negociating cross-licensing with competitors.

Fitness

This article notices the patent threat in the blockchain industry and discuss the risk management for open innovation, so it fits Track 8.1 Open Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, especially for the topic on “how firms manage IP assets at large scale in setting”.

Bibliography

Bradbury D. (2016). Why Hyperledger Wants to be the “Linux of Blockchain”, IT World Canada, https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/why-hyperledger-wants-to-be-the-linux-of-blockchain/383541.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The era of open innovation. Managing innovation and change, 127(3), 34-41.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2003c). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California management review, 33-58.

Da Silva, M. A. (2018). Open innovation and IPRs: Mutually incompatible or complementary institutions?. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge.

Holgersson, M., Granstrand, O., & Bogers, M. (2018). The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes. Long Range Planning, 51(2), 303-319.

Hyperledger (2018). “An Introduction to Hyperledger”, https://www.hyperledger.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/HL_Whitepaper_IntroductiontoHyperledger.pdf.



A framework to define engagement strategies with SMEs: the case of an Open Innovation initiative in a large Aerospace & Defence player

Jonathan Langlois, Sihem Ben-Mahmoud Jouini, Romaric Servajean-Hilst, Harold Van den Bossche

Ecole Polytechnique, I3-CRG

Context

The players of the Aerospace & Defense industry (A&D) must ensure the national sovereignty of technologies mobilized. This can become problematic when these technologies are acquiered rather than internally developed. This characteristic implies specific issues regarding Supply-Chain and Procurement management that are critical in an Open Innovation context.

Literature

BtoB Open Innovation recently received an increasing interest (Estrada, Faems, & de Faria, 2015; Wilhelm & Dolfsma, 2018; Bogers, 2011). This literature adressed the determinants of sourcing and absorbing knowledge by recipient firms. Studies highlighted the asymetry between recipient firms and sources regarding the size, the time horizon, the contraints, the objectives, etc. The impact of asymetry has been studied, on technology development (Baglieri, Carfì, & Dagnino, 2012; Doz, 1987), on strategic alliances (Dussauge, Garrette, & Mitchell, 2004) or in the field of BtoB relationship (Donada & Nogatchewsky, 2006).

Literature Gap

Very few studies explore how asymetric relationships are managed, in practice, and specifically from the point of view of large recipient firms from the identification stage to the exploitation of the knowledge acquired.

Research Questions

We are addressing the following question: how large A&D companies engage with startups and SMEs in order to develop sustainable relationships ?

Methodology

This paper is based on an 18-months action-research conducted within the Open Innovation team of a large firm in A&D and X case-studies of open innovation initiatives launched between Globaldef and innovative SMEs. The data comprises interviews with stakeholders, meeting reports, project presentations. Our methodology is based on comprehensive research in an abductive approach (Dumez, 2015) and multiple case study methodology (Yin, 2002).

Empirical Material

- 12 interviews

- Meeting reports

- Project presentations

Results

Based on this data, we suggest a three-phase framework: E3 (Explore, Engage, Endure). The role of Explore phase is to screen, target and track SMEs that could bring innovative skills and technologies to A&D players. The aim of Engage phase is to define strategic engagements between the recipient firm and selected SMEs in order to improve the maturation and the exploitation of technologies. Lastly, the goal of Endure phase is to secure durable access to SMEs’ technologies and skills in order to meet defense industry’s long development and production cycles. Each phase leads to specific mechanisms at the project level.

In this communication, we focus on the Engagement phase. The aim of this framework is to qualify the strategic context of relationships with SMEs, at the beginning in order to better outline relationships trajectories with SMEs. Each context and trajectory requires a specific engagement strategies.

Contribution to Scholarship

This paper explores a cross-functional organization of Open Innovation, enriching practical cases on Open Innovation Management (Bogers, 2011) specifically asymmetric relationships (Minshall et al., 2010). It also contributes to the Early Supplier Involvement literature (Schiele, 2010; Le Dain & Merminod, 2014) as the E3 framework sheds light on supplier engagement processes as a mean for stronger involvement. It also supports the researches on Supply-Chain and Procurement participation to Innovation Management (Servajean-Hilst & Calvi, 2018), based on a relational view (Johnsen, Johnsen, & Lamming, 2008).

Contribution to Practice

At the practical level, the contribution of the E3 Framework is to help Open Innovation managers of large firms in A&D sector and beyond to make better decisions regarding the strategic management of their innovative SME suppliers.

Fitness

In the A&D sector, Open Innovation is promoted as a mean to tighten the link between research and industry and also to protect valuable technological resources as a common heritage for society. Improvement in Open Innovation Management theory could therefore contribute to bridging the gap between research, industry and society.

Bibliography

Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93-117.

Dumez, H. (2016). Méthodologie de la recherche qualitative: Les questions clés de la démarche compréhensive. Vuibert.

Estrada, I., Faems, D., & de Faria, P. (2015). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management.

Johnsen, T. E., Johnsen, R. E., & Lamming, R. C. (2008). Supply relationship evaluation: The relationship assessment process (RAP) and beyond. European Management Journal, 26(4), 274–287.

Le Dain, M. A., & Merminod, V. (2014). A knowledge-sharing framework for black, grey and white box supplier configurations in new product development. Technovation, 34(11), 688-701.

Minshall T, Mortara L, Valli R, Probert D. (2010). Making ‘asymetric’ partnerships work. Research Technology Management 53(3): 53–63.

Schiele, H. (2010). Early supplier integration: the dual role of purchasing in new product development. R&d Management, 40(2), 138-153.

Servajean-Hilst, R., & Calvi, R. (2018). Shades Of The Innovation-Purchasing Function—The Missing Link Of Open Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(01), 1850008.

Vanhaverbeke, W., Cheng, J., & Chesbrough, H. (2017). A Profile of Open Innovation Managers in Multinational Companies.

Wilhelm, M., & Dolfsma, W. (2018). Managing knowledge boundaries for open innovation–lessons from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 230–248.

Baglieri, D., Carfì, D., & Dagnino, G. B. (2012). Asymmetric R&D Alliances and Coopetitive Games. In S. Greco, B. Bouchon-Meunier, G. Coletti, M. Fedrizzi, B. Matarazzo, & R. R. Yager (Eds.), Advances in Computational Intelligence (Vol. 300, pp. 607–621). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com.gate3.inist.fr/content/p861088685k8x051/abstract/

Donada, C., & Nogatchewsky, G. (2006). Vassal or lord buyers: How to exert management control in asymmetric interfirm transactional relationships? Management Accounting Research, 17(3), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.06.002

Doz, Y. L. (1987). Technology Partnerships between Larger and Smaller Firms: Some Critical Issues. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(4), 31–57.

Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchell, W. (2004). Asymmetric performance: the market share impact of scale and link alliances in the global auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 701–711.

Estrada, I., Faems, D., & de Faria, P. (2015). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.013

Johnsen, T. E., Johnsen, R. E., & Lamming, R. C. (2008). Supply relationship evaluation:: The relationship assessment process (RAP) and beyond. European Management Journal, 26(4), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.10.001

Le Dain, M., Calvi, R., & Cheriti, S. (2011). Measuring supplier performance in collaborative design: proposition of a framework. R&D Management, 41(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00630.x

Mindruta, D., Moeen, M., & Agarwal, R. (2016). A two-sided matching approach for partner selection and assessing complementarities in partners’ attributes in inter-firm alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 206–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2448

Najafi-Tavani, S., Najafi-Tavani, Z., Naudé, P., Oghazi, P., & Zeynaloo, E. (2018). How collaborative innovation networks affect new product performance: Product innovation capability, process innovation capability, and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management, 73, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.02.009

Servajean-Hilst, R., & Calvi, R. (2018). Shades of the Innovation-Purchasing function - the missing link of Open Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 1850008. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919618500081

Vanhaverbeke, W., Cheng, J., & Chesbrough, H. (2017). A Profile of Open Innovation Managers in Multinational Companies. Retrieved from http://media.wix.com/ugd/d6c2f0_b3a48c87c13f48d090d9953855a94dfa.pdf

Wilhelm, M., & Dolfsma, W. (2018). Managing knowledge boundaries for open innovation–lessons from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 230–248.



The building of dynamic capabilities within a digital ecosystem: the case of the banking sector

Clarice Bertin1, Véronique Schaeffer2

1ICN Business School, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA; 2University of Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA

Context

The impact of digital technologies presents specificities. Social media enables open strategies. Moreover digital technologies provoke a deep modification of current innovation process (Nambisan, 2017; Nambisan et al., 2017) and causes a perpetual change both in the environment and in the behavior of actors.

Literature

The two-way and complex link between technologies and business model choice has been shown by Baden-fuller & Haefliger (2013), and is considered by the authors as having received little attention. Furthermore, business models are closely linked to organizations’ dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2018).In addition, the current era of collaboration gave rise over the last decade to the expansion of open innovation (West et al., 2014). This open mode of collaboration to innovate has become a must for banks (Fasnacht, 2009). It can also be considered as a means to accelerate organizational change following Gianiodis et al. (2014) who claim for a better understanding of the organizational changes to help firms to develop this transition and the associated capabilities in order to capture value.

Literature Gap

In the dynamic capabilities approach organisations adapt to their environment to renew their competitive advantages. In digital ecosystems, the environment also contributes to the ability of the organisations to implement new business models.

Research Questions

How do the actors of the ecosystem contributes to the development of the ability of organisations to implement new business models ?

Methodology

We adopted a case study approach to explore the foundations of complex organizational phenomena (Yin, 1983, Eisenhardt, Graebner, 2007). We codified them using the framework of dynamic capabilities to characterize the internal capabilities of the banks and analyzing the role of environment.

Empirical Material

We conducted 11 interviews with banks, incubators and different kind of intermediaries of innovation in digital ecosystems.

Head of human resources bank 1

Head of innovation bank 1

Head of strategy and regulators affairs bank 1

Head of internal incubator bank 2

Head of internal incubator bank 3

Head of internal incubator bank 3

Head of bank agency bank 3

Head of Fintech incubator Luxembourg

Head of a set of incubators in Luxembourg

Head of Innovation club Luxembourg

Results

Banks face many strategic challenge. They have to develop dynamic capabilities Both internal and external innovation intermediaries play a central role in the identification of new business opportunities, in the ability of the banks to seize business opportunities and to implement new business models. They also a crucial role in the articulation of local and global dynamics. Moreover banks have to develop relational dynamic capability to increase the innovative potential of the ecosystem.

Contribution to Scholarship

A digital ecosystem both an ecosystem approach dynamic capabilities are both internal and external to the organisation.

To implement new BM in digital ecosystems, organisations develop sensing, seizing, reconfiguring and also relational capabilities.

Contribution to Practice

We show the central role of a diversity of innovation intermediaries which play a complementary role and develop cooperative strategies. We also show the proactive role played by mature organisations to develop a dynamic ecosystem.

Fitness

The spread of digital technologies leads to the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities in a wide range of economic activities leads.

Bibliography

Baden-fuller, C., Haefliger, S., 2013. Business Models and Technological Innovation. Long Range Planning 46, 419–426. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.023

Eisenhardt K. M., Graebner. M. E. 2007, “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.50, n°1, pp.25-32.

Fasnacht, D., 2009. Open innovation in the financial services, Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Nambisan, S., 2017. Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 41, 1029–1055. doi:10.1111/etap.12254

Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., Song, M., 2017. Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly 41, 223–238. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2017/41

Teece, D.J., 2018. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning 51, 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007

West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H., 2014. Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy 43, 805–811. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001

Yin R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and method, 2ème édition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.